ASSESSING

NEW VACCINES
FOR NATIONAL
IMMUNIZATION
PROGRAMMES
A framework to
assist decision
makers

Immunization Focus
World Health Organization
Regional Office for the Western Pacific
Manila
 ASSESSING NEW VACCINES FOR NATIONAL
IMMUNIZATION PROGRAMMES
A framework to assist decision makers

Acknowledgements: This document was prepared by Osman Mansoor, Susan Shin, Chris
Maher, and the Immunization Focus of WPRO. The authors are grateful for helpful
comments from Marcus Hodge, Ulla Kou, and Jay Wenger.

World Health Organization

Regional Office for the Western Pacific
Manila, 2000
An electronic version of this document is available on the WPRO website:
www.wpro.who.int

Immunization Focus
World Health Organization Western Pacific Regional Office
P.O. Box 2932 (United Nations Avenue) 1000 Manila Philippines
Fax: +632-521 1036 E-mail: EPI@wpro.who.int

World Health Organization 2000

ISBN 92 9061 154 5

This document is issued by the World Health Organization – Regional Office for the Western Pacific
(WHO/WPRO) for general distribution. All rights are reserved. Subject to due acknowledgement to
WHO/WPRO, this document may, however, be freely reviewed, abstracted, reproduced and translated,
in part or in whole, provided that such is not done for or in conjunction with commercial purposes, and
provided that, if it is intended to translate or reproduce the entire work, or substantial portion thereof,
prior application is made to the World Health Organization, Regional Office for the Western Pacific,
Manila, Philippines.
The views expressed in this documents are those of the principal contributors and do not necessarily
reflect the policies of the World Health Organization.

- ii -
 Table of Contents

Glossary and acronyms /iv

Purpose /1
Background /1
Vaccines available for inclusion in immunization programmes /2
A framework for decision-making on new vaccines /3
1. Is the disease a public problem? /4
2. Is immunization the best strategy for this disease? /5
3. How well is the immunization programme working? /6
4. What will be the net impact of the vaccine? /7
5. Is the vaccine a good investment? /10
6. How will the vaccine be funded? /10
7. How will the addition be implemented? /11
Conclusion /12
Annex 1: Economic analysis /13
Annex 2: Details of selected new vaccines /15
Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine /16
Influenza nasal vaccine /17
Japanese Encephalitis vaccine /18
Meningococcal (conjugate) vaccine /19
Pneumococcal (conjugate) vaccine /20
Rotavirus vaccine /21
Varicella vaccine /22
Annex 3: Asian Vaccine Initiative assessment framework /23

- iii -
Glossary and acronyms

CVP The Bill and Melinda Gates Children’s Vaccine Program (CVP) is
funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It is a five year
$100 million programme to speed the introduction of new and
under utilised vaccines.

DTP (or DTwP) Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (whole-cell) vaccine

DTaP Diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine. The acellular vaccine

is made from purified parts of the pertussis bacteria.

EPI Expanded Programme on Immunization. As the WHO’s smallpox

eradication programme was approaching its target (achieved in
1977), the WHO expanded the programme to include six diseases
that formed the basis of EPI, launched in 1974. In future, this may
be more appropriately called the Expanding Programme on
Immunization, as more vaccines continue to be added to national
immunization programmes.

Expert Committee A committee established by a government to provide technical

advice on a specific issue (e.g., to advise on immunization).
Generally needs to include a broad range of expertise.

GAVI The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) is a

partnership, formed in 1999, to ensure that all children of the world
have access to needed vaccines. The partners include national
governments, public health and research institutions, CVP, IFPMA,
Rockefeller Foundation, UNICEF, World Bank Group, and WHO.

GFCV The Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines (GFCV) has been
created by GAVI to provide the funds needed to meet the GAVI
objective of ensuring that every child in the world has access to
needed vaccines. It is a charitable foundation under US law. GAVI
will review funding proposals made by national governments with
the concurrence of the ICC. The Fund’s managers will be guided
by GAVI on the disbursement of its funds.

Hib Haemophilus influenzae type b – a bacterium.

- iv -
ICC An Interagency Coordination Committee (ICC) can be of different
forms and can have different names. The aim of the committee is to
provide a forum where the national government, multilateral and
bilateral aid agencies and other relevant groups can share
information to improve coordination of programmes.

IFPMA The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers

Association (IFPMA) has the mission of representing the
pharmaceutical and vaccine industry engaged in research,
development and manufacturing of medicines and vaccines.

New vaccine Vaccine not currently used in the national immunization programme.
It can include both newly available vaccines and vaccines that have
been available for some time but not used in the programme.

Surveillance The continuing, systematic collection of health data analysed and

disseminated to enable public health decision-making and action to
protect the health of populations. (Information for action)

UNICEF The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) was founded in

1946 to advocate for the protection of children’s rights, to help
meet their basic needs, and to expand their opportunities to reach
their full potential.

Vaccine 1) Biological substance that is administered to individuals to elicit

immunity (protection) against a specific disease.

2) Combination vaccines (e.g. DTP) protect against more than one

disease.

3) Live viral vaccines (e.g. poliomyelitis, measles) contain

attenuated (weakened) version of the disease-causing virus. The
vaccine virus causes a mild infection, usually with no or minimal
symptoms, that creates immunity against that virus.

WHO The World Health Organization (WHO) was founded in 1948 as a

special agency of the United Nations. It promotes technical
cooperation for health among nations, carries out programmes to
control and eradicate disease, and strives to improve the quality of
human life.

-v-
Purpose
Many new vaccines are available now and even more will be over the next decade.
They include vaccines for diseases not previously immunized against, improvements to
existing vaccines, and combination vaccines. The new vaccines could save up to eight million
lives a year.1

The decision to add a new vaccine to an immunization programme is often influenced

by social values, perceptions, and political concerns and is not just a technical one. This
document aims to help policy makers make decisions on new vaccines by clarifying the
technical and operational issues through a series of technical questions. It is recognised,
however, that many other issues may influence the final decision.

Background
In 1974, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the Expanded Programme
on Immunization (EPI). The EPI originally aimed to protect children against six diseases, and
was adopted globally. Since then, WHO has recommended new vaccines for inclusion in
immunization programmes, including:

yellow fever in 1986 (for Africa only);

hepatitis B in 1992;
Hib in 1997 (according to national capacities and priorities);2 and
Japanese encephalitis in 1998 (where affordable, for endemic areas).3

These new vaccines have not been adopted in many countries, despite immunization
being among the most cost-effective health interventions.4 Policy-makers may not consider a
vaccine because of cost, even though an expensive vaccine may be more cost-effective (i.e.,
yielding a better return on investment) than other government spending. Another obstacle is
the lack of knowledge of how much illness, disability and death (disease burden) the
pathogen (disease-causing agent) causes.

A rational technical decision on a vaccine requires information on:

disease burden;
vaccine safety and effectiveness;
vaccine cost; and
net impact (on immunization programme as well as health sector).
 The information on these four areas can be combined by economic analysis (e.g., cost-
benefit) that allows comparison of new vaccine introduction with alternative government
investments. Annex 1 provides an outline of the principles of economic analysis.

The framework presented in this document can be used to help build a case for new
vaccine introduction, by gathering the information to demonstrate that introducing the
vaccine would be cost-beneficial and operationally possible. An economic assessment has
already suggested that hepatitis B, Hib, and conjugate pneumococcal vaccines would be
cost-effective in nearly all countries.5

The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) was formed in 1999 to
accelerate new vaccine introduction. The GAVI partners have created the Global Fund for
Children’s Vaccines (GFCV) to fund poorer countries (annual per capita income less than
US$1000) for new vaccines and infrastructure development.

The Asian Vaccination Initiative (AVI) of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) can
offer loans for immunization programmes to countries in the region. There are also other
potential partner agencies to support the funding of new vaccine introduction, once a good
case has been made.

Vaccines available for inclusion in

immunization programmes
Several ‘new’ vaccines could be of potential benefit to Western Pacific countries
(Table 1). Annex 2 provides more detail on some of the vaccines likely to be of relevance to
the regions’ countries.

As well as new single disease vaccines, there are also combination vaccines. These can
either reduce the number of injections currently given, or else allow the addition of a new
vaccine without additional injections. Depending on the formulation of the combination, they
can also be introduced without placing additional burdens on the logistics. In general,
combination vaccines provide the ideal way to add a new disease to the immunization
schedule, because they place fewer burdens on the programme, are more convenient for
health workers and parents, and reduce the potential for unsafe injections and discomfort for
the person receiving the vaccine by minimising the number of injections necessary. However,
combination vaccines can be expensive and their comparative cost must be taken into
consideration when deciding on the introduction of new vaccines.

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /2

 Table 1. Vaccines of potential value to NIPs in the Western Pacific Region

Currently available Combinations Under development

(available)
Japanese encephalitis DTP-HepB Pneumococcus (conjugate)
Hepatitis A DTP-Hib –available in US
Hepatitis B DTP-HepB-Hib Meningococcus (conjugate)
Hib Hib-HepB – available in UK
Cholera Respiratory Syncytial Virus
Typhoid Measles-mumps-rubella Shigella
Varicella Measles-rubella HIV/AIDS
Mumps Malaria
Rubella Dengue
Influenza Rotavirus
Influenza (live, intranasal)

A framework for decision-making on new

vaccines
The following set of questions is suggested as a framework:

1. Is the disease a public health problem?

2. Is immunization the best control strategy for this disease?
3. Is the immunization programme working well enough to add a
vaccine?
4. What will be the net impact of the vaccine?
5. Is the vaccine a good investment?
6. How will the vaccine be funded?
7. How will the addition of the new vaccine be implemented?

Working through the questions will help the decision-making about a new vaccine. The
framework’s aim is to support rational, logical, and consistent decisions for any new
vaccines. It gives a structure to be changed as needed. The questions suggest an orderly
process. In practice, the order may differ and be more complex.

Working on the issues openly, and including community values, will lead to better
decisions. One way is an Expert Committee reviewing information and recommendations

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /3

prepared by technical staff. The Interagency Coordinating Committee can also play a role
by providing a perspective on international values and standards.

1. Is the disease a public health problem?

This is the most fundamental question. It can be difficult to answer when there are
limited data on the disease burden: the total number of cases of illness, disability, and death
caused by the pathogen (disease-causing agent). The disease burden equals the maximum
potential benefit of the vaccine.

Lack of data on disease burden can lead to a perception that the disease is not
important, especially when:

the pathogen causes a clinical condition (e.g., pneumonia) also caused by others;
there is little testing to identify the cause of the disease;
complications of the disease are not well known; and
occasional serious consequences of the disease are ignored.

Using or developing surveillance systems (or routine morbidity and mortality statistics)
to enable measurement of disease burden will allow monitoring the impact of the vaccine’s
introduction. However, this may not be feasible for specific pathogens in a developing
country. If routine surveillance is not appropriate or feasible measuring disease burden will
require special studies, but even these may only provide a partial picture. For example, the
WHO protocol for measuring Hib disease burden focuses on Hib meningitis because of the
difficulties in measuring the other outcomes,6 but most of the Hib disease burden is in fact
from pneumonia rather than meningitis.

Developing routine reporting and/or surveillance systems will not only help overall
management of health services, it will also identify the major disease priorities, and help with
new vaccine decisions. However, special studies may be needed to estimate the likely
proportion of a clinical condition (e.g., pneumonia attributable to Hib) due to that agent.

A creative new approach to estimate disease burden is a vaccine trial, as used for Hib
disease in Gambia,7 and in Chile.8 The disease burden was estimated from the amount of
disease prevented by the vaccine.9 This may be an alternative in situations where a
considerable disease burden is strongly suspected, but neither surveillance nor special
studies are feasible. A vaccine study in Lombok (Indonesia) with Hib vaccine and several
studies, including one in Bohol (Philippines), with pneumococcal vaccine will better define
the burden for both diseases in Asia.

Given the difficulties (and costs) of fully assessing the disease burden, it may be
appropriate to estimate the local burden based on data from similar countries.

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /4

 Answering the following questions will assist in deciding how to estimate disease
burden:

Can routine surveillance data, morbidity, and/or mortality statistics provide adequate
information on disease burden?
If not, can systems be introduced/enhanced to estimate disease burden from routine
data?
Are there special studies available on disease burden?
If not, can such studies be conducted?
Are disease burden estimates from similar countries available and applicable?

2. Is immunization the best strategy for this disease?

If an alternative control strategy is more cost-effective, a new vaccine should not be

considered. For example, controlling leprosy through case treatment has been shown to be
more cost effective than BCG immunization, unless the incidence of disease is greater than 1
per 1 000 per year.10

The comparison of alternative treatments may require a comprehensive economic

analysis (as outlined in Annex 1). Judgement is needed on what level of analysis is
appropriate for comparing different control strategies. Key factors will be disease burden,
vaccine effectiveness, and comparative costs of the different control strategies.

The following questions need to be addressed:

Are there any other ways to control the disease?

If so, how do they compare in terms of:
effectiveness
safety
costs
practicality/feasibility
time effects (how soon it works, and what happens over time –
e.g. development of antibiotic resistance)?

3. How well is the immunization programme working?

A new vaccine can increase programme coverage by increasing public support (through
reducing injections/visits or giving extra protection) or by revitalising the programme. But the
priority for a programme that is not working should be to fix the existing problems, not add a
new vaccine. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) requires at least

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /5

50% DTP3 coverage as a criterion for funding a new vaccine. If routine coverage is low,
increasing coverage will usually prevent more diseases than adding a new vaccine.
Increasing coverage also means that proportionately more disadvantaged children are
reached.

Fixing problems in the current programme may be more important than adding a new
vaccine. Ideally, any problems should be addressed as part of the process of adding a new
vaccine, as all of them can reduce the benefit (or increase the cost) obtained from adding the
new vaccine. Reducing vaccine wastage becomes especially important as most new
vaccines are more expensive.

An assessment of the programme to identify critical needs, as well as the ability of the
programme to add a new vaccine, is important. This is particularly true for financial
assessment. WPRO helped the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in developing an
assessment framework for the Asian Vaccine Initiative (AVI) (Annex 3). A more detailed
WHO assessment tool is also available,11 as is a tool for financial assessment.12 External
agencies may want an assessment before supporting funding (grant or loan) investments in
the immunization programme. Many aspects of programme performance need to be
assessed, including:

coverage (the key indicator of programme performance);

vaccine supply (procurement and quality of vaccine);
vaccine stock management (including wastage);
cold chain;
safe injection practices;
immunization delivery;
surveillance (for disease, immunization coverage, and adverse events following
immunization); and
communication.

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /6

4. What will be the net impact of the vaccine?

To answer this question requires the assessment of:

disease burden;
vaccine effectiveness;
vaccine safety;
impact on the immunization programme (including on local vaccine producers); and
other possible impacts.

These assessments will require making assumptions, as information is unlikely to be

comprehensive or certain. Sensitivity analysis is the use of both a low and a high estimate,
to look at the effect of the assumptions on the net assessment.

4.1 How much disease will be prevented?

The disease burden is the starting point (see section 1 above). Consideration of the
age distribution of that burden in relation to the timing of the vaccine and its effect is
needed to assess the impact of the vaccine. For example, children may not be
protected until they have completed the course of vaccines. Children born before the
vaccine is added will not get benefit of immunization unless there is a catch-up
programme for them. However, there may be indirect effects of immunization on
community (or ‘herd’) immunity that leads to less disease by preventing transmission of
disease in the community.

Another issue is that immunization of infants, by preventing disease in the very

young, can increase the average age of infection. At moderate levels of immunization
coverage, immunization can actually increase the disease burden if the disease is much
more serious in adults than in children (e.g., chickenpox).

For example, a rubella immunization programme might increase the incidence of

congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), by increasing the proportion of infections in adults.
This has been reported from Greece.13

Vaccine efficacy describes protection under ideal conditions, such as a controlled

trial. Vaccine effectiveness describes protection in the field, and is usually lower than
efficacy. In a trial, vaccines tend to be given to healthier people who will respond
better. Errors in vaccine storage, preparation or administration that can impair the
vaccine are less likely to occur in a trial.

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /7

 For an immunization programme, effectiveness is the key measure. But data may
only be available for efficacy, and not necessarily in similar populations. Effectiveness
has been shown to be lower for some vaccines in developing countries than in
industrialised countries. Therefore, in estimating the impact, it may be wise to assume
lower vaccine effectiveness than suggested by the efficacy data. This can be part of the
sensitivity analysis.

The likely vaccine effectiveness, immunization coverage and age specific disease
burden are combined to assess the amount of disease likely to be prevented, merging
the answers to these questions:

What is the age specific disease burden (including complication rates) in relation to
the age that vaccine would be given (including potential danger from increasing the
average age of infection)?
What are the likely indirect effects of immunization on reducing disease
transmission?
What is the likely vaccine effectiveness?
What is the likely vaccine coverage?

4.2 What are the possible negative effects of the vaccine?

It is the responsibility of the national regulatory authority (NRA) to ensure that only
safe products are licensed. But no vaccine is absolutely safe, and an estimate of the
burden of vaccine reactions needs to be in the assessment, based on the known vaccine
reaction profile of the vaccine. In addition, the consequences of unsafe injections should
also be included.

Answering the following questions will help identify possible negative

consequences:

What vaccine reactions are likely from the new vaccine?

What programme errors could arise from the new vaccine?
Could there be any other adverse effects from the vaccine?

4.3 What additional resources will be needed?

Potential logistical, operational, and social marketing implications of the new

vaccine, and its effect on the other vaccines in the NIP, need to be considered. For
each potential effect, the resource implications in terms of amount and cost need to be
estimated.

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /8

 What will be the additional requirements and costs of programme operations? Areas
to consider include:
vaccine;
transportation;
storage;
immunization materials (immunization records, worker time, injection supplies,
and disposal materials);
training of health workers;
social marketing; and
any new resources (e.g., more demanding temperature storage requirements).

4.4 How will perception of the programme be affected?

A new vaccine may change the attitudes of parents and/or health workers to the
immunization programme. That change may be negative or positive, depending on the
perception of the new vaccine and whether additional visits and/or injections are
needed. The change in perception can lead to changes in coverage of the other
vaccines, as well as affecting the new vaccine. The consequences of the new vaccine on
the other vaccines in the immunization schedule need to be considered with these
questions:

Will addition of the new vaccine increase or decrease the overall perception of the
value of immunization (dependent on the convenience, safety, and side effects of the
new vaccine)?
Will there be any extra visits or injections?
Can the vaccine be marketed in such a way that there is a demand for it?

4.5 How much risk will it place on the credibility of the NIP?

The issue of sustainability has been partly discussed above in section 3.

Introduction of a new vaccine will have both financial and operational implications for
the immunization programme. A critical issue is whether the new vaccine can be
introduced in such a way that additional work for staff is minimized. Funding is, of
course, of critical importance. If funding cannot be sustained and the new vaccine is
later dropped, this can hurt the credibility of the NIP, which is addressed with these
questions:

Is funding for the new vaccine likely to be sustainable?

Does the addition of the new vaccine significantly increase or complicate the
workload of staff at any level?

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /9

 4.6 What will be the impact on any local vaccine producer?

The impact on local vaccine production in countries where vaccine is produced is

an important consideration. For combination vaccines, one component may be
produced locally but a combined vaccine may not be technically or financially possible.
The role of local vaccine production needs careful consideration in relation to economic
and health benefit for the country.

Will using the new vaccine in the NIP threaten the viability of local production?
Could the new vaccine be manufactured locally through a technology transfer?

5. Is the vaccine a good investment?

Economic analysis enables comparison of different investments as well as provides an

estimate of the cost per health outcome. The net cost is the total cost of additional resources
for introducing the new vaccine minus any savings in treatment and other costs from disease
prevented. The net health impact is the disease, disability and death avoided minus any
adverse events from the vaccine.

Economic analysis aids decision-making to enable the most efficient use of limited
resources. It should not be confused with the fiscal cost of introducing the vaccine. The two
key questions are:

What is the cost per health outcome?

How does this cost per outcome compare with alternative investments?

6. How will the vaccine be funded?

Even for a ‘cost-saving’ vaccine new funding will be needed. This is the fiscal cost for
new vaccine introduction, and new funds will be needed to enable introduction. Showing
that the vaccine is highly cost-effective helps to obtain loans, funding from government or
donors, or a combination of all.

The government may be able to fund the candidate vaccine, or may need to seek
external funding. Whatever the initial source of funding, there should be some plan for longer
term funding. In practice, it may be difficult to do more than secure short-term funding for a
new vaccine. However, if there is serious doubt regarding the sustainability of the funding, it
may not be advisable to proceed. The questions to answer are:

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /10

 What is the total cost of introducing the new vaccine?
Where can the funds be found to cover this cost (short- and long- term)?

7. How will the addition be implemented?

Once funding is secured, adding the new vaccine requires careful planning to minimise
disruption to the immunization programme and maximise the benefits from the new vaccine.
Any changes to the immunization schedule need to be coordinated. This requires anticipation
of changes and knowledge of other new vaccines that may have a high priority for
introduction.

The introduction of the vaccine may require additional logistical resource if an extra
vaccine is added. Even if the new vaccine is just replacing an existing one, there may be
different storage requirements for the vaccine, or it may come in a different formulation
requiring more space. Depending on the scale and complexity of the additional logistical and
training requirements, and the capacity of the programme, it may be best to implement the
addition in a phased manner. Sometimes, a pilot introduction may be needed to evaluate
how the change is implemented in a small area before extending the change nationally.

It is important to evaluate the impact of the introduction of the new vaccine on the NIP
and to assess if the actual benefits are in line with the estimations. This evaluation should be
planned as part of the process of adding the vaccine. If actual benefits are not in line with
estimations, the reasons for the difference should be explored.

Surveillance for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) is needed to monitor

vaccine safety, especially for new vaccines that do not have an established safety record.
Guidelines are available to help establish a system.14

A plan for implementation is needed that answers the following questions:

Are any other changes planned to the immunization schedule?

If yes, how to coordinate with the new vaccine introduction?
Will the implementation be phased, piloted or introduced nationally?
If the introduction is being piloted, are the questions that the pilot is to answer clearly
formulated?
How will the addition be evaluated (including monitoring impact on disease and on
AEFI)?

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /11

Conclusion
The decision to add a new vaccine is complex. It needs a wide range of information.
Economic analysis can integrate the information, and compare alternatives. The decision is
always political, but thoughtful analysis helps decision-making to be rational and transparent.

References
1 World Health Organization. State of the world’s vaccines and immunization. Geneva: WHO, 1996.

2 WHO position paper. Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccines. Weekly Epidemiological Record 1998;
73: 64-8.

3 WHO position paper. Japanese encephalitis vaccines. Weekly Epidemiological Record 1998; 73: 337-44.

4 World Bank Development Report. Investing in Health. Washington: World Bank, 1993.

5 Miller MA, McCann L. Policy analysis of the use of hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b-,
Streptococcus pneumoniae-conjugate and rotavirus vaccines in national immunization schedules. Health Econ
2000; 9: 19-35.

6 Global programme for vaccines and immunization. Generic protocol of population-based surveillance of
Haemophilus influenzae type b. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1996.

7 Mulholland K, Hilton S, Adegbola R, et al. Randomised trial of Haemophilus influenzae type-b tetanus
protein conjugate vaccine for prevention of pneumonia and meningitis in Gambian infants. Lancet 1997; 349:
1191-7. [Published erratum in Lancet 1997; 350: 524.

8 Levine OS, Lagos R, Munoz A, et al. Defining the burden of pneumonia in children preventable by
Haemophilus influenzae type b. Pediatr Inf Dis J 1999; 18: 1060-4.

9 Mulholland EK, Adegbola RA. The Gambian Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine trial: what does it tell
us about the burden of Haemophilus influenzae type b disease? Pediatr Infect Dis J 1998; 17: S123-5.

10 Expanded Programme on Immunization. Framework for evaluating a vaccine for the EPI.
(WHO/EPI/GEN/93.05). Geneva: World Health Organization, 1993.

11 World Health Organization. Immunization Services Assessment Tool. Geneva: WHO, 2000.

12 Partnerships for Health Reform. Financing Assessment Tool for Immunization Services. Bethesda, MD:
Partnerships for Health Reform Project, Abt Associates Inc. 2000.

13 Panagiotopoulos T, Antoniadou I, Valassi-Adam E. Increase in congenital rubella occurrence after

immunization in Greece: retrospective survey and systematic review. BMJ 1999; 319: 1462-7. [published
erratum in BMJ 2000; 320: 361]

14 World Health Organization. Immunization safety surveillance: guidelines for managers of immunization
programmes on reporting and investigating adverse events following immunization. (WPRO/EPI/99.01).
Manila: WHO, 1999.

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /12

Annex 1: Economic analysis
The basic principle is to combine all the inputs and outcomes of a programme in one of four main
ways:

convert all inputs and outcomes into money values (cost benefit analysis or CBA)

convert all health outcomes to a standardized measure (e.g., disability adjusted life year or
DALY) and cost all inputs in money values (cost utility analysis or CUA)

focus on a single health outcome (e.g., deaths, hospitalizations, or cases) and cost the inputs
needed to achieve that outcome (cost effectiveness analysis or CEA)

calculate costs to achieve defined outcomes (cost-minimisation analysis).

The ideal is CBA, but for this all health outcomes need to be costed and that can be problematic. A
CEA avoids the need to cost health outcomes, but can only focus on a single outcome, limiting
comparison. The use of CUA enables many different types of health outcomes to be standardised, but
there is still the issue of valuing outcomes. Valuing health outcomes is not needed if the vaccine is cost
saving.

Perspective

The costs and benefits of the new vaccine will accrue to different parties: government (including
publicly funded health services); private health services; individuals and their families. The outcome of the
economic analysis may depend on the perspective of the analysis. A societal perspective will include costs
and benefits to all parties, while a more restricted analysis may be from the perspective of government, or
just for government funded health services. In general, economic analysis should be from a societal
perspective, but the funder may wish an analysis from their perspective.

Costs and valuations

The health outcomes prevented by the vaccine need to be quantified (e.g., days of illness,
h ospitalisations, disabilities and deaths). Vaccine reactions are a negative health outcome. The health
outcomes have costs as well as valuations.

Economic analysis should be based on the marginal rather than the average cost (i.e., the cost of one
extra or one less unit of activity).

Discounting for the future

The value of a sum of money is greater in the present than the future. Hence, in economic analysis
any expenditure or savings in the future must be discounted to present value. The annual discount rate
used in economic analyses varies from 3% to 10%, based on the real interest rate. The results of the
economic analysis can be very sensitive to the discount rate chosen, depending on the timing of the
impacts of the vaccine.

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /13

 Clearly, future financial costs and benefits need to be discounted to present values. But, there is
debate about whether future health outcomes should also be discounted to present value.

Sensitivity analysis

Uncertainty about costs, valuation, discount rate, and other assumptions is dealt with by sensitivity
analysis. The value of a parameter is changed and the effect of that change identified on the outcome of
the analysis to identify how sensitive the result is to the valuation of that parameter. In some cases, a
threshold value will be identified where the value of the parameter changes the result of the analysis.

Confidentiality

It is likely that confidential information (e.g., price of vaccine) will be needed for the analysis. In
addition, the result of the analysis may have commercial implications. Therefore, the analysis may need to
be kept confidential.

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /14

Annex 2: Details of selected new vaccines

Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine

Disease
Bacterial infection causing a wide range of clinical illness; most often pneumonia, meningitis,
septicaemia, and epiglottitis. Causes an estimated 3 million cases and 400,000 to 700,000 deaths annually,
globally. Disease most often in those aged 4-18 months, and rare under 3 months or over the age of five
years.

Status of use
Widely used in developed countries with dramatic reduction in Hib disease.

Use in Western Pacific countries

American Samoa, Australia, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Palau,
Wallis and Futuna.

Potential for Western Pacific countries

Disease burden poorly quantified in most countries of region that do not use vaccine.

Target population
All infants and children aged under five years.

Vaccine type
Polysaccharide cell coat of bacterium (PRP) conjugated to a protein carrier. Four different types of
conjugate vaccines are available. All extremely safe and effective in large randomised controlled trials
except one (PRP-D) that was not effective in the Alaska trial. The others are:

PRP-T: PRP bound to tetanus toxoid - produced by SmithKline Beecham and Aventis Pasteur. Three dose
primary series in the first year of life is adequate for protection, but the manufacturers recommend a booster
dose in the second year.
HbOC: PRP bound to a mutant diphtheria toxoid (CRM 197) produced by Wyeth-Lederle. Three dose
primary series in the first year of life is adequate for protection, but the manufacturer recommends a booster
dose in the second year.
PRP-OMP: PRP bound to meningococcal outer membrane protein - produced by Merck. Gives early
protection after a single dose, but lower levels of antibodies after a primary series in the first year of life
compared to other two conjugates. Two dose primary series in the first year of life (no benefit from a third
dose) and a booster dose at 12-15 months of age.

Formulation
Liquid (all); and lyophilised powder (PRP-T only) reconstituted with diluent or with DTP.

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /15

Combination products
Hib-HepB (PRP-OMP from Merck); DTwP-Hib (HbOC from Wyeth-Lederle; PRP-T from SmithKline
Beecham); DTwP-Hib-HepB (PRP-T from SmithKline Beecham). There are Hib combinations with DTaP
(acellular pertussis) but these are not recommended for infants as they generate lower levels of Hib
antibodies.

Issues for introduction

Cost; uncertainty about local disease burden; implications for local vaccine manufacturer.
Combinations allow introduction without extra injections. The UNICEF price for DTwP-Hib-HepB vaccine
in 2000 is US$3.50 per dose.

WHO position statement

Recommended according to national capacity and priority [Weekly Epidemiological Record 6 March
1998; 73 (10): 64-8].

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /16

Influenza nasal vaccine

Disease
Viral infection that causes annual winter epidemics in temperate zones, and throughout the year in the
tropics. Influenza pandemics (world-wide epidemics) have greater impact, especially the 1918-9 pandemic
that killed an estimated 20 million people.
Main public health burden arises from the complications of influenza (leading to hospitalisations and
deaths) that are more common in people aged 65 years and over, and in those with certain chronic medical
conditions (e.g., heart or lung disease, diabetes).

Status of use
Under development. Early trials appear promising.

Use in Western Pacific countries

Not available.

Potential for Western Pacific countries

Not clearly quantified. Likely to be substantial, especially with ageing of populations.

Target population
Older people; people with chronic medical conditions.
Possibly also for children in the future if aiming to prevent viral transmission.

Vaccine type
Cold adapted (i.e., modified) live influenza virus. Would need new formulation every year to match
changing strains of influenza viruses in circulation. (Safe and efficacious inactivated injectable vaccine has
been available for many years).

Formulation
Intranasal spray.

Combination products
Nil.

Issues for introduction

Relative priority compared to other new vaccines.

WHO position statement

Not available.

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /17

Japanese Encephalitis vaccine

Disease
Most important cause of viral encephalitis in Asia, causing at least 50,000 cases and 10,000 deaths per
year, mostly in children. Virus transmitted by mosquito, mostly from pigs, at seasonal intervals.

Status of use
Mouse-brain derived inactivated vaccine in widespread use. Cell culture derived inactivated and live
vaccines available in China.

Use in Western Pacific countries

China, Viet Nam.

Potential for Western Pacific countries

Affects several countries in region, including Cambodia, China, Korea, Japan, Laos, Malaysia,
Philippines, Viet Nam.

Target population
Infants and young children.

Vaccine type
See ‘Status of use’. New vaccines may be available in future.

Formulation
Lyophilised powder for reconstitution with diluent (mouse-brain inactivated vaccine)

Combination products
Not available.

Issues for introduction

Cost of vaccine. Additional injection.
Only relevant for JE endemic countries.

WHO position statement

Recommended in JE endemic areas where affordable [Weekly Epidemiological Record 30 October
1998; 73 (44): 337-44].

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /18

Meningococcal (conjugate) vaccine

Disease
Bacterial infection with Neisseria meningitidis causing meningitis and septicaemia. Estimated 300,000
cases and 30,000 deaths annually, globally. Can be endemic (mostly infants) or epidemic (more older
children and young adult) patterns of disease. Most disease caused by serogroups A, B, and C.

Status of use
New conjugated type C vaccine introduced into UK in 1999. The plain polysaccharide (unconjugated)
vaccine has been in use for many years for epidemic control.

Use in Western Pacific countries

Nil. (Unconjugated vaccine used in China)

Potential for Western Pacific countries

Burden of disease not adequately known, but may be potential for the conjugate vaccines as it is
effective in infancy, where disease burden is likely to be highest.

Target population
Infants for endemic disease (conjugate vaccine). Age group for epidemic response dependent on
epidemiology.

Vaccine type
Polysaccharide cell coat of bacterium conjugated to a protein carrier (as with Hib). Only
meningococcal C conjugate vaccine currently available. Plain polysaccharide vaccine (available for A, C, Y
and W-135 serogroups) has been available for many years, but is not recommended for children aged under
two years, as efficacy is reduced.

Formulation
Liquid formulation.

Combination products
Combination of all four serogroups (unconjugated) available, but not combined with other vaccines.

Issues for introduction

Relative priority. No suitable vaccine yet for infant (except type C in UK).

WHO position statement

Polysaccharide vaccine recommended for epidemic control; but the role of conjugate vaccines yet to
be established [Weekly Epidemiological Record 10 September 1999; 74 (36): 397-303].

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /19

Pneumococcal (conjugate) vaccine

Disease
Bacterial infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae causing invasive disease (pneumonia,
septicaemia, meningitis) and non-invasive disease (otitis media, sinusitis, bronchitis). Causes 1 million
deaths in children per year. Mostly affects young children and older people. Over 90 serotypes of
pneumococcus, majority of disease caused by a few serotypes.

Status of use
Only recently (late 1999) recommended for use in the USA.

Use in Western Pacific countries

Nil.
Philippines trial of Aventis Pasteur’s 11-valent vaccine starting in 2000 and will take 3 years to just
complete recruitment.

Potential for Western Pacific countries

Disease burden poorly quantified in region.
Vaccine likely to prevent substantial amount of pneumonia and meningitis and deaths.

Target population
All infants and, potentially, the elderly.

Vaccine type
Polysaccharide cell coat of bacterium conjugated to a protein carrier (as with Hib). The only currently
licensed vaccine is a 7-valent (i.e., containing 7 serotypes of pneumococcus) vaccine from Wyeth-Lederle.
This vaccine is not suitable for developing countries as it is missing some important serotypes. The 9- and
11-valent vaccines are being tested in several developing country sites, including one trial in the
Philippines. There is also a 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine that has been available for many years, but is
not recommended for children aged under two years, as efficacy is reduced.

Combination products
Nil yet.

Issues for introduction

Cost; availability of vaccine with serotypes appropriate for population; addition of an extra injection
until combination vaccines become available.

WHO position statement

Position statement on the existing pneumococcal vaccine, rather than new conjugates, but notes the
likely superior efficiency of the conjugate vaccines [Weekly Epidemiological Record 11 June 1999; 74 (23):
177-84].

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /20

Rotavirus vaccine

Disease
Viral gastroenteritis. Most common cause of infectious diarrhoea in infants and children worldwide.
Globally, causes more than 125 million cases per year, 25% of diarrhoeal deaths and up to 5% of all deaths
under age five years. Four serotypes responsible for the majority of disease.

Status of use
Seven vaccines under development. The Wyeth-Lederle vaccine was licensed and recommended for
universal use in the USA, but withdrawn when ~1 in 10,000 risk of intussusception (bowel obstruction) in
vaccinees identified in post-marketing surveillance.

Use in Western Pacific countries

Nil.

Potential for Western Pacific countries

Likely to be important disease burden in young children.

Target population
Infants.

Vaccine type
Several vaccines under development. They are all live vaccines using rotavirus from a different
species and genetically modified to express the proteins of the different serotypes. The Wyeth-Lederle
vaccine used rhesus rotavirus, Merck a bovine virus.

Formulation
Oral liquid.

Combination products
Not available. Can be given at the same time as oral polio vaccine (OPV) and other vaccines.

Issues for introduction

Safety concern may hamper the testing needed for licensure of other vaccines, as very large trials will
be needed to evaluate risk of intussusception.

WHO position statement

Awaiting demonstration of efficacy (and now safety) in developing countries before a
recommendation for use in immunization programmes [Weekly Epidemiological Record 5 February 1999; 74
(5): 33-8].

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /21

Varicella vaccine

Disease
Viral infection that is nearly universal in childhood (commonly called chickenpox). May be less
common in the tropics. Relatively mild disease, although occasionally fatal. Disease more severe in adults.

Status of use
Recommended for all children in the USA, but not in other developed countries. Even in USA,
coverage is low (~60%).

Use in Western Pacific countries

Recommended in US territories in Pacific – American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam

Potential for Western Pacific countries

Morbidity uncertain. Probably of limited value compared to other diseases.

Target population
Infants. Non-immune adolescents and adults.

Vaccine type
Attenuated live virus, Oka strain.

Formulation
Lyophilised powder that requires reconstitution with supplied diluent.

Combination products
Not yet available. Measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine (MMRV) being developed.

Issues for introduction

Relative priority compared to other diseases and high cost.
One vaccine requires storage at -15oC and use within 30 minutes of reconstitution

WHO position statement

Other vaccines likely to be higher priority in most countries; if used must have high coverage to
avoid shifting disease to older age groups; may be used in susceptible adolescents and adults without
risking age-shift [Weekly Epidemiological Record 7 August 1998; 73 (32): 241-8].

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /22

Annex 3: Asian Vaccination Initiative assessment
framework

The Asian Vaccination Initiative (AVI) is an independent initiative of the Asian Development
Bank. Through an initial assessment of immunization financing requirements, AVI seeks to
identify areas of potential assistance by the Bank. The priority of AVI is an equitable and
sustainable immunization programme. AVI is separate to, but works in collaboration with, the
Global Alliance Vaccine Initiative (GAVI).

A. Purpose

1. This framework is to be used for an initial assessment of financing issues within a National
Immunization Programme (NIP). Based on existing documentation, it seeks to:
(i) Outline the current financial status, including financing gaps, of the NIP.
(ii) Identify sustainable financial options for strengthening existing NIPs. Areas of
support may include the cold chain, surveillance or injection safety.
(iii) Identify future funding requirements for a routine (or expanded) NIP.
(iv) Identify potential areas for new investment in the NIP. These may include the
introduction of new vaccines or Implementation of disease control initiatives.
(v) Identify anticipated and potential funding sources.
(vi) Where possible, provide a cost-effectiveness analysis of current and / or planned
immunization activities.
2. The framework does not attempt to undertake a comprehensive review of a NIP (refer WHO
Assessment Guidelines). It does however seek to provide relevant and timely information to
countries so sustainable financial planning can take place. It is based on the comparative
advantages of the ADB (financial and economic expertise) and therefore should offer a tool,
and results that provide added value to a country’s immunization program. It may be used
with a specific investment in mind, in which case the focus may be narrower.
3. It is intended to be consistent with, and complementary to, the WHO assessment tool that
provides more detailed suggestions in relation to adding new vaccines.
4. The framework provides a starting point to be modified according to need and local
circumstances. It is important that the government, Interagency Coordinating Committee,
and other key stakeholders concur with the framework and terms of reference for the
assessment.

B. Overview
5. This framework identifies key information that can facilitate the analysis of current costs
and cost projections for a NIP as well as current and future financing needs. Background
and contextual information should allow for a wise investment decision.

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /23

 6. Areas that will require comment and/or analysis include:
(i) Background and context of the programme
(ii) Strengths and weakness of the programme
(iii) Current, and future, costs of the programme (including cost-
effectiveness analysis of activities)
(a) For a routine, or expanded NIP
(b) With the introduction of new vaccines
(c) With increased disease control initiatives
(iv) Current, and future, financing of the programme
(a) Traditional and emerging sources
(b) The need and potential for additional funding
(c) Constraints
(v) Recommended investments
(a) Cost-effectiveness analysis of investment
(b) Likely impact of a new investment on the programme

C. Method
7. The process for doing the assessment will depend on the country, the precise purpose, and
the resources available. Some general suggestions are offered here.
8. As an initial assessment, it is assumed only existing information about the NIP, including
planning documents, previous reviews, and financial reports will be used. Where this
information is not sufficient, a more in-depth review of the immunization programme may be
recommended. Information should be supplemented by interviews with key informants and
observations of operations at various levels including practice in the field.
9. The assessment should be undertaken with the support of the Interagency Coordinating
Committee (ICC). Major financial stakeholders should be informed of the study, and their
collaboration sought.
10. The next steps are to:
Stage one
1. Collect, synthesize and analyze available information
2. Define gaps and areas of uncertainty that require enquiry
Stage two
3. Plan further data collection, if necessary
4. Collect data (information, documentation, and observations)
5. Synthesize and analyze all the data
6. Define and describe problems

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /24

 Stage three
7. Conceive solutions for the problems
8. Prioritize solutions based on cost-effect
9. Recommend actions.
11. If an international consultant is involved in the study, the collection of stage one
documentation and/or information should take place prior to their arrival.
12. The source, reliability and validity of all information need scrutiny. Of particular importance
are any discrepancies between sources or between service delivery levels.
13. Feeding back, at all levels of enquiry, on identified problems and potential solutions will
provide opportunity for validation as well as participation in problem solving.

D. Data collection
14. Most of this information should be readily available from routine sources (e.g. Table 1), or
will have been summarized in previous reviews of the NIP. Existing reports can be provided,
and do not need to be rewritten as duplication is to be avoided. If reviews do not exist, or
are out of date (>three years), the following is a guide to the basic data needed. Those
marked with an asterisk (*) are desirable but not crucial. Brief but adequate descriptions or
comment will be sufficient.
15. Comment on quality of reporting mechanisms and data may be required. Explanation for
discrepancies between nationally collected data and WHO/World Bank/UNDP data should
be provided, where possible.

1. Background and context of the programme

16. Current information about the operating environment of the NIP is a necessary component
of the assessment. The feasibility of any financing proposal or investment will be
dependent upon the economic and political context within which the NIP must work.

Table 1. Sources of national information

National policy and planning documents, standards, guidelines, and reports on the health system
and immunization services
WHO and UNICEF immunization programme reviews
Demographic and Health Survey (DHS)
UNDP Human Development Report
World Bank and other agency reports on health sector, government reforms, etc.
Current budget allocations and data on expenditures

a. Demographic
(i) Population statistics, including
(a) total
(b) under 5’s (or other age relevance for specific vaccine)
(c) women of child-bearing age
(ii) Ethnic composition

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /25

 (iii) Vital statistics, including
(a) birth rate (any gender imbalance)
(b) infant mortality rate/1,000 live births
(c) maternal mortality rate
(d) under five deaths per 100,000
(e) life expectancy rates
(iv) Major cause(s) of death, including
(a) age-standardized deaths rates
(b) vaccine-preventable deaths
b. Economic
17. This data will provide information on the government’s commitment (through spending
patterns) to the health sector in general, and the immunisation programme in particular. It
also places the feasibility and sustainability of an investment into immunization in an
economic context.
(i) Development status
(ii) poverty levels
(ii) Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita
(iii) Percent of GDP spent by government
(iv) Percent of GDP allocated (or spent) on health percent of public health costs
supported by external sources
(v) Per cent of (government) public health funds spent on the immunization programme
(v) Balance of payments*
debt service/exports
(vi) Annual growth rate previous year*
(vii) Average annual growth for previous five years* Annual growth rate previous year

c. Political
18. The political context will influence the support provided to an immunization programme
(i) Form and structure of government
(ii) Key decision makers for health spending, and for the immunization programme, and
their position (authority) within government
(iii) Relationship between Ministry of (Public) Health, and Ministry of Finance (or
equivalent)

d. Health Sector
(i) Burden of disease, including vaccine preventable diseases
trends
(ii) Quality of disease surveillance

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /26

 (iii) Description of sector
status of ongoing or planned health reforms, and impact on immunization
services
health policies, strategies and planning
structure of health services, and place of immunization programme
management responsibilities and reporting process
human resource capacity
(iv) National regulatory authority (NRA)
(v) Financing for health services, including internal and external sources (and trends)
(vi) Financial reporting and transparency of funding allocations and expenditure
(vii) Role of private sector
(viii) Role of other organizations
aid agencies multilateral, bilateral
international non-government organizations
Interagency Co-ordinating Committee

e. Immunization & vaccines legal status

19. The legal status of vaccines and immunization may provide impact on proposed changes,
including introduction of new vaccines.
(i) Legal status of vaccines
(ii) Immunization schedule in legislation
legal process needed to change the immunization schedule
(iii) regulatory authority for vaccines
Management capacity
(iv) Children’s legal right to immunization
(v) Legal requirements for immunization
(vi) Those legally permitted to vaccinate

2. The Immunization programme

20. The purpose of this data is to determine strengths and weakness of the program and
therefore identify areas that may need investment. Information is needed on the scale of
problems, the likely cost of the solution(s), and their relative importance/priority. Previous
reviews should be used in the first instance as source documents. Recommendations from
these reviews should be included, and comment provided on whether the recommendations
were implemented, and if so, to what extent and success implementation occurred.
21. Information should be provided on the various levels that the NIP operates. This will
include national, sub-national, and service delivery, with the number of levels dependent on
the health sector’s structure. Use of sub-national and service delivery information should
aim to cover both rural and urban areas, high and low performing areas, densely and
sparsely populated areas, and areas serving mobile populations. Review is both of policy (if

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /27

 present) and actual practice, noting reasons for any differences.
22. The AVI priority is equitable coverage of the population for immunization services.
Particular attention should be paid to minority, marginalized or ‘unreachable’ populations.
23. (WPRO has developed a quantitative indicator of programme sustainability, based on a
subset of some of the information that is covered here. This provides a score that may be
helpful to focus on the issues.)

a. Management (capacity)
(i) Policy and planning documents (e.g., National Immunization Plan, Annual Work Plan)
implementation of plans
evaluation or review process
outcomes (analysis of failure)
planned expansion
(ii) Administration systems
performance based pay structures
(iii) Leadership, position of EPI manager in hierarchy
(iv) Expert Advisory Committee
(v) Experiences with introduction of new vaccines

b. Immunization delivery services

(i) Role of service providers, public and private
(ii) Role of other organizations
aid agencies multilateral, bilateral
international non-government organisations
Interagency Co-ordinating Committee
(iii) Human resources
capacity and quality
training
(iv) Immunization schedule
(v) Frequency of services, by region/rural
(vi) Strategies to reach under-served populations
obstacles to access
potential for incentives (providers and users)
(vii) Experiences with introduction of new vaccines
(viii) Administration
Record keeping, reporting
follow-up for defaulters
(ix) Capacity to undertake or absorb changes

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /28

c. Surveillance
(i) Methods of surveillance
standards, guidelines, case definitions
(ii) Reporting process and timing
response to no reporting
(iii) Data analysis and response national, regional, local
availability of maps
(iv) Data quality checks, validation, and feedback
(v) Integration with other health sector surveillance

(1) Disease surveillance

(i) Vaccine-preventable diseases
(ii) AFP surveillance indicators
(iii) Other surveillance indicators
(iv) Laboratories/sample collection and processing

(2) Coverage surveillance

(i) Methods
Routine/campaigns
(ii) Trends, reported vs survey, projected vs actual
Areas/population with lower coverage
Proportion of areas not meeting target
(iii) Drop-out rate (eg measles-BCG; DTP3-DTP1)

(3) Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance*

(i) System for reporting AEFI
(ii) Quality of reporting
(iii) Ability to investigate AEFI

d. Vaccine supply
(i) Vaccine source(s)
price, including shipping and handling
quality
(ii) Procurement method(s)
reliability of supply
access to international mechanisms
(iii) National regulatory authority (6 functions)

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /29

e. Logistic systems
(i) Management and administration
vaccine and equipment forecasting (calculation of requirements)
wastage data (incl. supplied vs used)
(ii) Vaccine stock management
storage, preparation
lot release/quality checking before vaccine distributed
interruptions in supply
open vial policy and vaccine vial monitors (VVMs)
waste disposal
(iii) Capacity to introduce new vaccines
(iv) Cold chain
Performance
Status of cold chain and transport equipment
standardised equipment
quality
forecasting of replacement needs
Maintenance capacity
spare parts
skill base
Response to cold chain failures (protocols)

f. Safe injection practices

(i) National plan
training and supervision of health workers
(ii) Type(s) of injection equipment
(iii) Disposal and destruction of used materials

g. Communication
(i) Communication strategy
current resources
(ii) Reach
(iii) Funding for communication
(iv) Social mobilization national/community leaders

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /30

E. Costs and financing requirements for the NIP
24. This is the focus of the assessment, and will require collection and compilation of a range of
financial documents. Comment will need to take into account the global and regional
context of immunization financing, including the role of GAVI (reversal of decline in donor
funding?), and post-polio dividends. Expenditure data rather than cost data will be used at
this stage, but acknowledgement should be made of government contribution to services,
which contribute to immunization programs (eg PHCs).
25. This information will be used in conjunction with the above data to undertake cost-
effectiveness analyses.
1. Management
(i) Capacity
(ii) Line responsibility
budget development
budget reporting
2. Systems
(i) Accounting system
line items
reporting system
(ii) Reporting system
actual expenditure versus budget
accountability
(iii) Ability to absorb and manage increased funding

3. Budget
(i) Method of compilation
data source, basis for forecasting
(ii) Current budget
budget lines for immunisation, including vaccine purchase
income, eg user fees
(iii) Trend over past three years
(iv) Forecasting
infrastructure replacement
improvements /strengthening
new vaccines

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /31

 4. Expenditure
(i) Reported expenditure, current and past three years
overheads
capital items
recurrent costs, incl. Training
payments to vaccinators (fee for service, incentives)
(ii) Strategy for cost reduction, including identification of cost efficiencies
5. Sources
(i) Contributions
Components (public sector, private sector, insurance, household, and
donors)
trends, over past three years
anticipated future contributions
(ii) Strategy for sustainable financing
self sufficiency
alternative strategies (eg user incentives)
(iii) Options for additional financing
GAVI, ADB

F. Recommended investments
26. The assessment needs to bring together all the elements into a conclusion about the
programme and its priority needs. This enables recommendations about financing options,
including new investments, for the programme.
27. This assessment framework is designed to highlight major financial concerns. The design
of a project, or investment may require more in-depth investigation and analysis to ensure
feasibility and sustainability.

G. Likely impact of a new investment

28. Informed speculation by relevant stakeholders, together with the results of the assessment
will provide a basis for comment.
29. If a new vaccine is being considered, information will be needed on disease burden and
vaccine safety and effectiveness, as well as likely coverage. The impacts on the rest of the
immunization programme as well as the wider health sector also need assessing. (refer WHO
assessment to introduce new vaccines)

Assessing new vaccines for national immunization programmes /32

The Immunization Focus of the WHO office of the Western Pacific Region has established the following
mission statement and objective:
To eliminate sickness and death caused by vaccine-preventable diseases through the development of
strong, sustainable national immunization programmes capable of delivering high quality vaccines in
a safe and effective way to all children and adults who require them
The Immunization Focus achieves this objective by working with national immunization programmes in
all countries and areas of the Region. It accomplishes its objective through immunization of children
against tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus, measles, and hepatitis B; protection of
newborn infants against neonatal tetanus by immunizing pregnant women and women of child bearing
age; and immunization of broader than usual age groups during disease control activities.
_______________________________________________________________________________

This document aims to help policy analysts and decision-makers when considering the addition of new
vaccines to national immunization programmes. It reflects the growing international concerns that all
children of the world should have access to life-saving vaccines wherever they happen to live. There
are vaccines that countries can consider now, and more new vaccines are becoming available. The
document provides a set of questions to work through the technical issues for adding a new vaccine to
the national immunization schedule.
_______________________________________________________________________________

For further information please contact:

Immunization Focus
World Health Organization Western Pacific Regional Office
P.O. Box 2932 (United Nations Avenue) 1000 Manila Philippines
Fax: +632-521 1036 E-mail: EPI@wpro.who.int

OR

Please browse through our website at:

www.wpro.who.int

Sw.fr. 5.00/US $4.50

In developing country: Sw.fr. 3.00
ISBN 92 9061 154 5